The ECHR first ruled against the blanket ban on prisoner voting in 2010. This is the fourth time the court has ruled against the UK. The court says an automatic ban violates Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which covers the right to free election.

The latest case was brought by 1,015 prisoners who were unable to vote in elections between 2009 and 2011, a period which included the last UK general election. No compensation has been awarded to the claimants.

According to Sean Humber, of the law firm at Leigh Day, who is currently acting for 554 prisoner clients in today’s judgment, the government have “cynically sought to drag the matter out through a succession of consultations during the last decade”.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said, “The government has always been clear that it believes prisoner voting is an issue that should ultimately be decided in the UK. However we welcome the Court’s decision to refuse convicted prisoners costs or damages.”

A draft bill is currently before parliament but no decision is expected until after the election in May.

According to the UK government, The Committee of Ministers, which oversees the ECHR’s judgments, has agreed to defer further discussion of the UK’s implementation until September 2015.

Humber said, “Frankly, this judgment comes as no surprise given that the Court has already found this ban to be unlawful in a succession of judgments over the last decade.”

“However, given the UK government’s stubborn refusal to take action to remedy the breach, as it is legally required to do, and as a consequence of which it is almost certain that prisoners be unable to vote in the forthcoming May 2015 General Election, we are disappointed that the Court has not seen fit to award our clients compensation for breaching their rights.”

Comments

Leave a Reply

If they don’t like the consequences of their crimes, they know what to do about it. When they can call to the voting station they can cast their vote if for a reason of their own making they can’t then tuff!

0

| Hide Replies ∧

devbod

10/02/2015 20:48

“we are disappointed that the Court has not seen fit to award our clients compensation for breaching their rights.” Read: we took on this case for free because we thought we’d be reimbursed with lots of taxpayers money when we were awarded costs. In the UK you cannot vote if you are in prison. I doubt any prisoner was remotely bothered until approached by a lawyer with the prospect of compensation. If the ECHR wishes to contribute to the idea that all things EU are bureaucratic idiocy then its doing an excellent job. At least they didn’t award costs, I… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

10/02/2015 21:40

Most prisoners have not committed crimes that warrant a life sentence. Most will eventually be released from prison. It’s in everyone’s interests that once out of prison, they do not commit any further crimes, but instead become useful members of society. That involves reform whilst still in prison, and rehabilitating offenders to think – and act – more positively about their civic duties and responsibilities. One of the most important contributions citizens can make to society is to take part in our democracy and vote. It doesn’t make any sense to me that removing the obligation of a civic duty… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

10/02/2015 21:48

They committed crimes & as a result are removed from society, if they are on a day out & can get to their registered polling station so be it if they can’t then there is a reason for it. Did these criminals vote when they were free? did they vote in the EU elections that harp on about voting for criminals? I bet the answer is no! I would sooner they money was spent on pensioners facilitating their ability to get to a polling station.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

10/02/2015 21:57

My proposal was not about removing prisoners from society, but how best to re-introduce them to society once they are released from prison. In my view, that process needs to take place before release, rather than afterwards.

One idea is that those convicted of sentences of less than, say, two years should not lose the right to vote; and those who are serving longer sentences should have the right to vote restored to them a year or so before their release date.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

devbod

11/02/2015 00:15

Spending what is probably now in the millions of taxpayer money in the courts on this issue does little to benefit society either. This is an issue for prison reformists in the UK. The EU can sponsor conferences for pan european debate and exchange of ideas. What they have no business doing is using human rights legislation to impose what they consider reasonable on others. Isn’t liberty a human right? What if ECHR ruled imprisonment inhuman? Human rights laws were intended to be *basic* human rights, they are now being applied in perverse scenarios for which they were never intended.… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 00:52

The court, like any other, can only impose rulings based on law, which in this case is the European Convention on Human Rights, drafted by British lawyers as a direct response to the abject horrors of the Second World War and the Nazi regime. Human rights do not mean that someone cannot be suitably punished or imprisoned for a crime once fairly tried and convicted. Human rights mean that all humans deserve that society, and the State, protect them from abuse of their basic civil rights. If the State can be allowed to abuse humans – any humans, for any… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

devbod

12/02/2015 11:39

Your reply simply states the basis for human rights laws with which few would disagree. You choose to ignore completely the point of my argument that they are being applied well beyond their original intent and as such are open to interpretation by the reader in a way that matches their own social/political views. HR laws need to be championed by ALL the people. As such they must be ideals behind which everyone can unite. When they are reinterpreted to support a social agenda, no matter how laudable, they are devalued and risk losing the unity they need if they… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 17:25

Devbod, please provide evidence to back up your assertions. I have studied the rulings of the Court of Human Rights and I cannot recognise what you are claiming.

0

|

devbod

12/02/2015 19:08

Strange, you have already asserted them yourself. – The EC(ourt)HR has ruled against the UK for depriving prisoners of the vote – The UK was a primary force in drafting the laws and yet has denied prisoners the vote throughout. – The EC(onvention)HR makes no mention of exceptions to the right to vote. This leaves it open to interpretation as to what exceptions are ‘reasonable’. Before you argue the last point, society always makes these judgements. 18yrs old? 16yrs old? 10yrs old? mental competence? No fixed abode? Nationality? Residency (and for how long)? All open to argument or criticism. Prisoners… Read more »

0

|

Joe Thorpe

10/02/2015 22:07

I’m all for reforming & upon release of course they will be allowed to vote but most criminals are antidisestablishmentarianists who would sooner be down the pub than attending their polling station but this would merely create another tier of costs. Why not take the polling station to everyone & not just prisoners? why should they get special attention? but each to their own your entitled to your opinion. If we need to have a referendum about it to shut the EU up once & for all then lets have one at the next general election. Personally I’d leave the… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

10/02/2015 22:58

@Joe Thorpe, the EU is nothing to do with the European Court or Convention on Human Rights. Britain was the first country to sign the Convention in 1950 , and it was British lawyers who drafted the Convention based on the English, and United States, Bill of Rights; the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and German Basic Law. Winston Churchill was a strong proponent of the Convention. At least 18 European countries, including Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland have no ban on prisoner voting. In France and Germany, only some prisoners are denied the vote. European… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

10/02/2015 22:59

PS If the UK ultimately refuses to obey the Court’s ruling, it will be the first time one of the 47 signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights will have declined to comply with an order of the European Court of Human Rights. What message does that give to countries who regularly flout human rights legislation? That human rights are optional?

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

10/02/2015 23:05

Actually it is, the EU insists that member states are also members of the ECHR although if we left I don’t see what they can actually do about it? Membership is supposed to demonstrate something to the Russians, I don’t know what because they couldn’t care less about it could they? Its used as a tool to flog countries reputations many who we would sooner have on board rather than keep biting away at their shins. Diplomacy is not something the EU does well as it has such a disparate collection of members many of who are more aligned with… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 00:02

It’s hard to understand why the European Convention on Human rights – which was promoted by Winston Churchill and drafted by British lawyers – should be such a problem for us and not the other 46 signatories to it. We are a member of the EU – it is whatever we make it, along with our fellow members. In the UK, our democracy is through our Parliament, which has approved each and every change to our membership of the EEC/EC/EU. Not once have any changes been forced through without the democratic consent of our Parliament. If you want to blame… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

10/02/2015 23:09

As I said what can they do about it? They aren’t the UN they can’t order tanks to be put on the streets of London. The ECHR is a waste of space a pygmy version of the UN of which we have a seat at the big table something the EU doesn’t. The message it sends by the way is that the ECHR is an interfering court which seeks conflict for no reason other than to make itself feel relevant

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 09:07

We’ll have to disagree, Joe Thorpe. Those who understand why it was essential to establish Human Rights conventions after the Second World War do not want to see them diluted or undermined. We need to ensure that Human Rights are properly understood, and legitimately interpreted and upheld. If the UK government breached your Human Rights, wouldn’t it be safer to have the right to ultimately appeal to an international court – as we can now? If you are interested to know more about my researches and conclusions about this, please read one of my articles, “UK SOS! Our human rights… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

evad666

11/02/2015 05:16

Still nothing from the court about the mass gang rape and abuse of underage girls here in the UK.
Currently 3642 young white victims spread across 24 UK towns and Cities. How many are hidden by the authorities across the continent?

0

| Hide Replies ∧

evad666

12/02/2015 06:27

The Court and its supporters make much of Churchills involvement.
Do they really think he would have tolerated the Courts interference when it comes to convicted criminals?
Do they really think its ruling should be applied to anyone and everyone who actually gets to set foot in a country, commits a crime and then cannot be ejected but costs the taxpayers millions paid for the benefit of lawyers who specialize in self interest?

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 09:02

Evad666 you asked, “Do you really think its ruling should be applied to anyone and everyone who actually gets to set foot in a country, commits a crime and then cannot be ejected but costs the tax payers paid for the benefits of lawyers who specialize in self interest?” No, I don’t think so, but then that isn’t actually what happens. There is a lot of misreporting and misunderstanding about the Human Rights Act. For example, Article 8 might appear to provide a ‘right’ for foreign criminals to stay in the UK, but in realty this ’right’ is only upheld… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

12/02/2015 10:35

We are talking about basic human rights not the right to sit up front on a 747 to Sydney because your legs get cramped long haul. I hear the talk about not being able to deport only a minuscule number of undesirables but in most cases that is the one the public cares about. No one really give a fig about an Ebay scam artist from a third world country flogging fake Rolex watches. We want to be rid of that one percent of the most vile individuals who cares if they get flogged back where they came from? I… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 14:34

Joe, we agree that human rights are too serious to be undermined by vexatious or silly cases. However, I have studied many of the cases and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and I do not recognise the ones you have cited or the rulings you say the Court has made. Can you please let me know the sources of your information so that I can personally check them out? I do know that the media are notoriously bad sometimes at reporting the Court’s rulings and in view of that it’s no wonder that people have a maligned… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Player

12/02/2015 14:48

As a 43 year old man, I’ve NEVER had a chance to vote no this, and many other thing that come out of europe, other then EU elections, the sooner the UK is out of europe the better, what works in some countries isn’t always good for others, you only have to look at the USA to see this.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 15:20

Player, I will welcome a referendum, and I respect your view that you don’t want the UK to be a member of the EU anymore. My personal view is that it would be a disaster for us to leave Europe and would break the greatest peacetime legacy of Churchill, who wanted to see a Union of all European countries. However, I suspect the decision won’t be down to you or me, who seem set on our decision already. The deciding factor will be those who are currently undecided, so for both pro and anti EU supporters, there is everything to… Read more »

Churchill didn’t want us to be a part of Europe, he wanted a united Europe shaped by our values united so it would cease its constant wars they we kept being dragged into at great cost both in lives & financially to put right. If Europe has kept its own peace the UK would still have British citizens living & working in daylight on some corner of the planet 24 hours a day. We gave all that away to put an end to a Germanic Europe unified by the barrel of a gun. just 5% of UK GDP involves trade… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 16:17

Churchill had a vision of a Union of Europe that included all the countries of Europe, and although I concede that he didn’t envisage Britain joining in the late 1940s and early 1950s, by the late 1950s and early 1960s he had changed his mind and supported Britain’s application to join the EEC, primarily because by then it was obvious that our Empire was dying, our Commonwealth was diminished and our relationship with the USA had fundamentally changed.

For proof of this please see my article, “Churchill – a founder of the European Union’

Because the UK is in the EU, the UK can not trade with anyone unless it’s is though the EU institutions. Isn’t it sad you think the EU is the world, and the UK will be along. THE EU IS NOT THE WORLD, ps I’m not going to play your game of past every 2 mins.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 17:24

Player, I am not sure where you are getting your information from. The UK is free to trade with all countries of the world. We get the best trade deals because the of the muscle of the EU as the world’s biggest and most successful trading block, and the world’s biggest importer and exporter of manufactured goods. If the UK left the EU, we would have to negotiate all our trade agreements with the world’s countries again, and as a little country I am not confident that we could achieve the same favourable terms as we do through the EU.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 17:24

Player, I am not sure where you are getting your information from. The UK is free to trade with all countries of the world. We get the best trade deals because the of the muscle of the EU as the world’s biggest and most successful trading block, and the world’s biggest importer and exporter of manufactured goods. If the UK left the EU, we would have to negotiate all our trade agreements with the world’s countries again, and as a little country I am not confident that we could achieve the same favourable terms as we do through the EU.

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

12/02/2015 16:14

Just google UK deports Islamic clerics or terrorists to see a few names pop up. If the ECHR thinks these folk deserve our kindness perhaps they will put them up in the Brussels Hilton instead of expecting the British taxpayers to house these leeches & their extended families. If I had my way I’d put their entire bloodline on a canoe about a 100 miles off the Queensland coat

It took two world wars defending the citizens of Europe from the Germans over a 50 to 60 year period. We joined a trading block not a political straight jacket, we were conned in 1975 & told it was still a market block but like most things coming from the EU we were told a pack of lies to buy our votes. You do know we were bribed in 1975? Its the only year we were not a net contributor to the EU budget, funny that eh? What country while on an IMF program has consistently been a net contributor… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

12/02/2015 16:52

I read it but it doesn’t take into account the basic human rights that Churchill believed in & the gold plated first class ticket version your friends seem to believe in. We had capital punishment back in the day when Churchill was in power being gay was a criminal act, a married woman needed her husbands signature to cash a cheque lol throwing up Churchill to justify your defense of the ECHR is patently ludicrous in those days you could be dragged before a military court & shot at dawn, maybe we should go back to Churchillian times?

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Jon Danzig

12/02/2015 17:31

I think we have come a long way since Churchill’s times, even though they’re not so long ago. Churchill proposed an antidote to war on our continent after two world wars destroyed our continent beyond recognition: he proposed free movement of people across Europe; a European Convention and Court of Human Rights, and a European Union that could become a United States of Europe. I believe that since our membership of the EEC (now called the EU), huge reforms and progress have been made, and I hope that important reforms and more democratisation will be achieved. I want the UK… Read more »

0

| Hide Replies ∧

Joe Thorpe

12/02/2015 17:30

What trade deals of substance has the EU managed to achieve? South Korea, Singapore wow wee We want free trade deals with Australia, Canada, America, Brazil. China & from outside the EU just like Switzerland we would be able to do trade deals. While we are chained to the EU we can’t a deal would have to be agreed by all 28 nations.